view_file_source

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool reads from the live source repository and requires SOURCE_ROOT configuration, but omits details on error handling, permissions, or behavior when lines are out of range. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences: one defining purpose and one stating a prerequisite. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (not needing return value explanation), the description adequately covers purpose and prerequisite. However, it could clarify that this tool is for source files only (not artifacts), a nuance hinted but not explicit. Minor gap for a well-defined tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description reinforces 'precise line range' but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Read a precise line range from the live source repository', specifying the verb (read), resource (live source repository), and scope (precise line range). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_file_skeleton (structural view) and read_project_artifacts (non-source artifacts).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a prerequisite ('Requires SOURCE_ROOT to be configured in project/.settings'), providing clear context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_file_skeleton or search_code_skeletons, missing the opportunity to guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.